Different /e/ phonemes in Siouan?

[Koontz John E]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Rory M Larson wrote:
> I want to get this on the list before I get killed by a wildcat
> or something.  It's been gradually sinking into my consciousness,
> through numerous corrections in my pronunciation by our speakers,
> that they are actually making a distinction between the tenser,
> full /e/ sound, as approximately in "late", and the lower or more
> central /e/ sound as in "let".  The last time I corresponded with
> Ardis, she seemed to be coming to the same conclusion.
>
> Last night, Mrs. Alberta Canby gave me what seems to be a minimal
> pair.  It seems that in Omaha, the /he/ that means "horn" is
> pronounced with the tense /e/ as in "late", while the /he/ that
> means "louse" is pronounced with the more central /e/ as in "let".

I haven't noticed this myself in the past, but I wouldn't attach a great
deal of significance to that.  LaFlesche didn't notice it, but was happy
to write c-cedilla for both s and z.  Dorsey does write e-breve, quite a
lot, but I've always attributed this to overdifferentiation.  David's e
vs. E for more tense vs more lax seems reasonable to me.

My first instinct would be to wonder if this was a correlate of length.
What sort of intonation is there?  What happens if you add an article or
in compounds with the two different forms?

What other forms might exhibit one or the other of the two e's?

I've noticed that the e after aspirates is more lax, e.g., in tti=the
[ti<high>tHE<low>].  Dorsey regularly writes this as t<e-breve>, perhaps
indicating the same thing.

Otherwise, note that hE 'louse' corresponds to Dakotan he'ya, while
presumably he 'horn' might be inalienable from *ihe.  I'm not sure if this
is any help.  If 'louse' were a contraction or reduction of *heya, I'd
expect it to be the tense one.

JEK